lusterniafandomcom-20200216-history
Report 1724
Report #1724 Skillset: Necromancy Skill: Deathmark Org: Magnagora Status: Completed Jun 2017 Furies' Decision: All solutions. Problem: Once considered top-tier by a wide margin, Necromancy has rightfully received several reductions in utility and overal strength during its lifetime. As the overhauls have continued, however, due to changes in resistance formulas, DMP, and percent-scaling Necromancy has found itself 'behind the curve,' of many similar Rituals-based skillsets. Rather than addressing individual skills case- by-case at this time, this report attempts to bring some presence back to the skillset as a whole by tweaking a core skill, Deathmark, to create a ripple through the various abilities that interact directly with the affliction. This will allow Necromancy users a rationale behind stacking Deathmark and reward the time required to do so. 9 R: 0 Solution #1: The functions and scaling of Deathmark are calculated only for the holder of the mark, which currently stands against the current direction of affliction design in the game as a whole. To resolve this, make it so interactions with Deathmark from other skills function and scale irrespective of who 'holds,' the mark on the target. This serves several purposes, such as increasing the overal 'worth,' of Deathmark, reducing affliction tracking, and allowing more strategic interplay between Necromancy users. 6 R: 1 Solution #2: In addition to Sol1, increase the max stacks of Deathmark to 25 to bring it in line with other similar Rituals 'stacking-skills,' such as Timewarp or Temporary Insanity. Even with skill interactions between Necromancy users being viable, the actual scaling of Deathmark is still relatively low. In addition to making it less trivial to max out stacks, this will allow for a moderately increased reward from Deathmark stacking to other Necromancy skills. 4 R: 2 Solution #3: Also in the effort to bring Deathmark more into line with similar afflictions, move this from a cleanse cure to Purity in order to maintain some degree of affliction synergy while making the affliction itself less onerous to deal with. Player Comments: ---on 6/14 @ 23:03 sets as pending ---on 6/14 @ 23:25 writes: So Solution 2 increases the max scaling possible for deathmark scaling skills. As far as I know, it's pretty light on each skill that does that, but some specific numbers of what it is now and what it will be at the new max would be appreciated. For Solution 3, I think in a lot of cases this would just make it impossible to build. Right now deathmark isn't particularly impactful so having it be a (generally ignored) cleanse cure is fine. Maybe with Solution 2 it puts it over the top, but I'm not sure this is the direction you should go. Solution 1 is fine. ---on 6/15 @ 00:37 writes: I don't see a problem with Solution 1 or 3. And Solution 2 is fine iif it the scale just becomes more granular, so that the new max has the same effects as the current max. ---on 6/15 @ 22:45 writes: My only concern is if deathmark or any of the skills that use deathmark are ever changed to be more powerful than they are right now. With deathweapon we might get into a situation where deathmark builds very quickly, so that is something to keep in mind. For comparison, timewarp is just not possible for a Sentinel to build while temp insanity is possible for a Templar only with a lot of investment. ---on 6/16 @ 18:39 writes: 1 and 2 seem fine to me because as far as I know all the scaling on deathmark is pretty weak. It will definitely need to be revisited if there are buffs in scaling in the future. For solution 3 I share Shedrin's concerns. I predict that moving it to dust will later result in a report that asks for a buff either in application or something else to hinder dust and I'm not sure if I want to go down that road of granting necromancy users a full on dust stack either by buffing mark or something else so that their mark is not instantly cured off. I think if you want to move it off of cleanse that a timed cure would be better. ---on 6/16 @ 22:48 writes: Asking again for clarification of the details of what effect Solution 2 will have. Thanks. ---on 6/17 @ 10:47 writes: Yeah, I feel like I can't very well weigh in on this report without understanding the underlying data better. At this moment just supporting solution 3. ---on 6/26 @ 22:01 writes: I'm hesitant about switching it to a purity cure-- either it will make it trivial to off, or (especially in cases where it is made to passively build) it will get in the way of other affs. Difficult to balance it well. But at the same time, trying to make it stronger while leaving it on a cleanse cure can also be problematic. So, for now, just going with solution 1. I think this report needs more investigation, numbers, effects, passive vs. active generation, etc. before we make significant changes to functionality.